Original Article
Comparison of the efficacy of dispensing granules with traditional decoction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Dispensing granules have been developed for about 20 years. However, whether they are as effective as the traditional decoction kept unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis was made to assess the efficacy of dispensing granules compared with traditional decoction.
Methods: We searched four databases since their inception to 9th September in 2016. Two authors independently identified trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 5.0. We conducted meta-analysis with RevMan 5.1.0 software for eligible and appropriate trials.
Results: In the end, 7,035 participants from 51 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared dispensing granules with traditional decoction were included in this systematic review. There were 33 different kinds of diseases for investigation, of which 8 RCTs observed common cold, 4 RCTs observed migraine. For rheumatoid arthritis, insomnia and hypertension, there were 3 RCTs reported respectively. The last RCTs reported different kinds of diseases in one or two trials. The majority of trials were in low methodological quality. Thirty-eight (74.5%) RCTs showed that the efficacy of dispensing granules were similar with traditional decoction, 6 (11.8%) RCTs reported that the therapeutic efficacy of dispensing granules were significantly better than traditional decoction. We conducted meta-analysis for 4 trials investigating patients with migraine. The results showed that dispensing granules reduced headache frequency by about 1.03 attacks per month as compared to traditional decoction. No evidence was found in terms of migraine intensity and duration.
Conclusions: The low quality of RCTs and conflicting results made it difficult to draw a definite conclusion. In the future, it needs much more evidence to explore the efficacy and safety of dispensing granules. N-of-1 trials and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation methods may be better choices for assessing the efficacy of them than RCTs.
Methods: We searched four databases since their inception to 9th September in 2016. Two authors independently identified trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook 5.0. We conducted meta-analysis with RevMan 5.1.0 software for eligible and appropriate trials.
Results: In the end, 7,035 participants from 51 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared dispensing granules with traditional decoction were included in this systematic review. There were 33 different kinds of diseases for investigation, of which 8 RCTs observed common cold, 4 RCTs observed migraine. For rheumatoid arthritis, insomnia and hypertension, there were 3 RCTs reported respectively. The last RCTs reported different kinds of diseases in one or two trials. The majority of trials were in low methodological quality. Thirty-eight (74.5%) RCTs showed that the efficacy of dispensing granules were similar with traditional decoction, 6 (11.8%) RCTs reported that the therapeutic efficacy of dispensing granules were significantly better than traditional decoction. We conducted meta-analysis for 4 trials investigating patients with migraine. The results showed that dispensing granules reduced headache frequency by about 1.03 attacks per month as compared to traditional decoction. No evidence was found in terms of migraine intensity and duration.
Conclusions: The low quality of RCTs and conflicting results made it difficult to draw a definite conclusion. In the future, it needs much more evidence to explore the efficacy and safety of dispensing granules. N-of-1 trials and fuzzy comprehensive evaluation methods may be better choices for assessing the efficacy of them than RCTs.
